Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2017L01170].

I know some people in this place will think this is groundhog day, 'Here she is again, talking about trying to disallow these awful trials.' I make absolutely no apology for making you all debate this disallowance. I will continue to do so while this awful legislation exists and while these trials continue. I will bring this issue back again and again and again.

So we're clear, this is to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017. This determination amends the Ceduna and East Kimberley determinations to extend both of the cashless welfare card trials, in the East Kimberley, predominantly centred on Kununurra and Wyndham, and in Ceduna. It extends the Ceduna determination until 14 March this year and the East Kimberley determination until 25 April 2018. I will note that the next debate we enter into after this will be on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 and the government's desire to continue to roll out the cashless welfare card.

This instrument was made on 11 September 2017 and registered on 13 September 2017, one day before the Ceduna and surrounding region determination was in fact due to cease. So there are a lot of people on this card thinking, 'Finally, we're going to get off it,' and then, bang, the legislative instrument comes in and furthers the trial.

As anticipated, the trials and the subsequent extensions—supported by both this government and the opposition—have turned out to be a rubber stamp on income support, based on reports and evaluations spruiked with premature evidence, anecdotes and ideology. That's what these are based on: anecdotes and ideology. Because if it wasn't, the government and the opposition would not have (a) initiated this program and (b), in the case of the opposition, supported it. The evidence from the Northern Territory is overwhelmingly clear: income management failed. It met none of its objectives. I bet most people in this chamber have not bothered ever to go and look at that final evaluation. It's a very thick report. If you're time-poor, as we all are, go and read the conclusion; go and read the key points. That will tell you the facts you need to know.

People in the trial areas were told that they would be subject to the card for one year only. But the government keeps sneakily extending the card through legislative instruments, and the opposition just keeps letting them, as does the crossbench. In fact, when they last extended the trials, last year, participants were given just one day's notice that the trials were continuing. This is no way to treat people, particularly those who feel traumatised and disadvantaged by the card. Despite the heartbreaking, spectacular failure of the 10 years of intervention and income management and then new income management, the government thought they'd give income management another shot. The ideology wins out again! Maybe 10 years worth of failure is just not definitive enough! And the continuing disadvantage in the Northern Territory: I don't know, it's just not definitive enough to say, 'Actually, income management doesn't work.'

Quite frankly, it is mind-boggling that the government's solution to helping communities who do have issues with drug and alcohol addiction, gambling and other major problems is a card that quarantines 80 per cent of income support recipients. Somehow this will magically solve the problems of addiction, of disadvantage and those underlying causes of disadvantage. Really and truly, if it were that simple—that you just bring in a card, you quarantine people's finances and you take control of their financial literacy, and that deals with addiction—wouldn't that put a whole lot of our medical professionals out of a job? Now, why didn't those medical professionals think, 'Why don't we just bring in a card where we control people's finances, we control their lives and that will magically fix addiction?' It'll magically fix the intergenerational trauma that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people feel and—as was pointed out at the Close the Gap breakfast this morning—deal with the history of disadvantage and of dispossession. The evidence of the impact of that is ongoing in people's lives today. All that will be magically fixed with this card! Although the government says they acknowledge that it's not a silver bullet, in fact they do think that. From their behaviours, it's quite obvious that they do, that they think this will magically fix it. And that's a belief—not based on evidence.

I'm growing so tired of the government just relying on anecdotal evidence and it being presented as fact—when the facts they ignore. They ignore the facts in the Northern Territory. They ignore the fact that 49 per cent of people said that their lives are made worse—and that's from a flawed survey. So, 49 per cent, when it is genuinely acknowledged across the board that the ORIMA valuations were flawed—particularly the push polling, the so-called surveys. Even in that process so many people said that it's made their lives worse. The so-called ORIMA evaluation reports rely very heavily on anecdotal evidence and are based on push poll surveys and skewed data. The reports simply don't stand up to scrutiny, and I can give you quite a significant stack of papers in which respected researchers have gone through and looked at the ORIMA reports and been quite scathing, in many cases, of those evaluations. We've had academics and data experts give evidence at the bills inquiry—we're going to be talking about that as the next item of business in this place—that the reports are flawed. They expressed concerns regarding the research and methodology being used to validate claims that the card is working and needs to be extended and expanded.

The list of concerns is long, but I'll note a few. Well-regarded academics—Dr Janet Hunt from the ANU, Professor Eva Cox from the UTS and Dr Elise Klein from the University of Melbourne—have concerns regarding research design, the sampling strategy, questionnaire design, recall bias, social desirability bias, the rising refusal rates of those surveyed, and the combination of longitudinal and intercept data, amongst other things. No baseline data was used and the ORIMA report's authors overlooked or dismissed important data that was not favourable to the trial. East Kimberley and Ceduna were weighted equally, despite the East Kimberley having a much higher rate of trial participants. Many survey participants deemed questions regarding changes in alcohol, drug or gambling behaviours as not applicable because they never engaged in those behaviours in the first place.

If you are a vulnerable person struggling with alcohol, drugs or gambling addictions and an authoritative figure starts questioning you about your drug use, it's highly likely that you are going to say, 'I've reduced my drug use' or 'I've stopped using.' Of course you're going to say that. It's a well-known and recognised survey risk. If I think you might take even more money away from me or you're going to take my kids away from me, I'm going to say on the survey, 'Yes, I've reduced my drug and alcohol intake.' If you're asking people if they've drunk less or are looking after their children better, what do you expect people to say? Of course they're going to say, 'I'm drinking less. Yes, I'm looking after my children.'

The evaluation claims that public perceptions of safety had increased. However, researchers at the University of Western Australia have demonstrated that public perception of crime is not reliable and rarely correct. But, if people say that to the researchers compiling the ORIMA reports, somehow it's fact, somehow it's correct, even though the research shows it's incorrect. In fact, the same was shown for the Northern Territory intervention. There were perceptions that things were better. However, when the researchers tested that in other regions not subjected to income management, they found the same levels. So, in other words, it wasn't safer. They just perceived it was safer because of income management, although it wasn't. It comes as no surprise that the trial areas didn't see an increase in employment. It's funny—it would be funny if it weren't tragic, I should say—how the government think that giving people a card is magically going to find them a job. There are simply so few jobs available in these communities. Where are people going to magically find these jobs?

The government are using a report that they know is flawed to justify the trial expansions. Government senators come into this place and parrot the government's lines with no understanding of the issues on the ground or of the flawed ORIMA report. They have no understanding of the impact of the card on people's lives. One senator claimed that it made no difference if people weren't spending their money on drugs or alcohol or gambling. That is utterly not true. I spoke to a number of participants on the card last week who, in fact, don't drink, don't take drugs and don't gamble, and they said the card has had a profound impact on their ability to manage their money. They gave an example of the shame they felt when they went into a restaurant and weren't able to pay to eat because the restaurant sold alcohol, as a lot of venues do. They couldn't pay. So it's absolute nonsense to say that it makes no difference if you were 'doing the right thing', as the government puts it. That brings me to the point that, apparently, if you're on income support, 'the right thing' is that you're not even allowed to buy a glass of wine. If you're on a DSP, you're not even allowed to have a glass of wine because that's 'the wrong thing'.

Senator Brandis, yesterday in his valedictory speech, made the point about the growing authoritarianism of the Left. That's from the party who are telling people how to spend their money and want to control people's daily lives. They take away people's financial independence—control of their finances and control of their life. I found that quite a significant point of interest—that we are the ones being accused of authoritarianism, when they are the ones seeking to control people's lives.

Mr Tudge, while Minister for Human Services, kept saying that they will only roll out the card if the community wants it. Well, it's pretty clear from the Senate inquiry that, while some communities are divided on the issue and some are very strongly opposed, the one thing that is universally agreed upon is that they want to be listened to, they want wraparound services and they want to be consulted. If they're on income support, they want to be consulted, and the people in the Kimberley and Ceduna haven't been. People have many problems with the card, and they don't want to be on the card.

Over the course of the Senate inquiry into the latest bill, we heard about the lack of consultation with people who are living on the card and with key community organisations. In fact, when I went to Hervey Bay, which is in the region where the government wants to roll out the welfare card, I held a public meeting, and more people attended that than had been turning up to the consultations the government had been running and inviting people to. At one of our Senate hearings, we heard from the Mayor of Ceduna, who said that the 'consultations' taking place in his town were people calling into the office. Apparently that was the process of consultation. The people actually living on the card had not been consulted, and that is just simply not good enough.

I'm very glad that community members from the trial areas came to Canberra to talk to the committee. It's time the government listened to them. In November, I also tabled a petition with over 850 signatures from members of the Bundaberg community who do not want their area to be another trial site. And I think we need to stop using this term 'trial', because it's quite clear the government wants to keep rolling this out. You can wear the word 'trial' when they said it was for a year, but they just keep rolling it out in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna—and now they want to put it in other places too.

People in those communities in Bundaberg don't want it in their area. They want to see real assistance from the government to tackle issues like substance abuse. Again, people want to deal with these issues of addiction, but they recognise addiction is a health issue. People want help dealing with the issues in their communities, but they want investment in wraparound services and they want to address the underlying causes; they don't want another trial of a card that doesn't work.

Of course we all know the card overwhelmingly targets Aboriginal people. We know it was brought in in response to Andrew Forrest's report Creating Parity, which was about creating parity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. He wanted this card for Aboriginal people. We know that there were people who moved away when they heard the trial might be coming to the area. This is particularly devastating for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and for the Aboriginal communities in remote communities. The first peoples should not have to choose between living on country and having proper access to income support.

People in remote communities need access to cash. I've heard multiple examples of why that's important. It's just common sense. Banking and card facilities that we have in the city are just not available in rural and regional areas—and I outlined yesterday, in my contribution to the second reading debate on the new rollout of the card, some of the concerns that people have. People simply can't survive on 20 per cent of their income in cash in these communities.

The survey data includes significant personal reports of increased hardship, and, in the wave 2 financial evaluation report, many of the surveyed participants said that they ran out of money to buy food or to pay for items for their children. There are a number of reasons why people are running out of cash on their card—and I articulated yesterday the problems with forcing people to use the credit facilities and the problems with the EFTPOS facilities. There is simply no evidence that blanket income management works, and it should be abandoned.

Some of the other issues that people have raised with me include, for example, the community panels, where the government has consistently refused to name the people on them. I have a form here that people are supposed to fill in if they want an exemption from the 80-20 rule. You can't get off the card, but you can apply to this faceless community panel, which may include your neighbour, to get the percentage quarantined—reduced from, say, 80 per cent; the lowest is 50-50. The person I was talking to, a person on DSP who does not spend money on drugs, alcohol or gambling, made an application to the panel in their region and asked for 50-50. With no explanation whatsoever, the panel said 60-40. There's absolutely no evidence that this person is suffering from any addiction or that she mismanages her money, yet an arbitrary decision was made of 60-40.

They have conditions like: 'I give my consent for the panel administrator collecting the personal information I've provided on this form. I give my consent'—this is from Western Australian, the Kununurra region—'for the Western Australia Police to provide information surrounding any convictions I have.' The Department of Housing, Community Housing Limited, Kununurra Hospital, Catholic Education WA, the Department of Education, the Department for Child Protection and East Kimberley Job Pathways—it says, 'I give my consent to the panel administration providing my personal information received from the above authorities to the community panel.' They're going around asking every single body they can think of about a person's personal life and personal finances. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy. People don't want this card. It doesn't work. This farce should end. I urge this chamber to support this disallowance to put an end to this farce once and for all.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this disallowance motion proposed by the Greens. Based on our extensive consultations with Indigenous stakeholders and communities, we oppose the disallowance motion of the Greens. As I said in my remarks yesterday in the second reading debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, the cashless debit card is a complex issue. Issues of alcohol abuse, intergenerational poverty and social dysfunction, and the implications of those issues, are extremely complex. Their causes are extremely complex. Equally, the policy solutions that address these issues require careful deliberation and consultation, and that's exactly what Labor have done in determining our position. We need a calm and considered approach on this issue. Labor have consulted with many communities and many key stakeholders both in the trial site communities and around the country. We've received a wide range of opinions from both communities and individuals within those communities. We've heard from some communities and individuals who strongly oppose the cashless debit card. We've heard from some communities and some individuals who support it.

To be very clear, Labor does not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. As I've said many times, Labor believes that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. I also want to make Labor's position very clear. Labor supports a limited continuation of the existing cashless debit card trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberley. However, Labor will not support the rollout of the cashless debit card to the two new proposed sites of Bundaberg and the Goldfields. Labor understands that entrenched disadvantage cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we have always advocated for the government to provide additional wraparound support to the participating communities.

Labor believes that there still exists sufficient community support for a continuation of the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Labor knows that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional community supports for participating communities. We're calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound services be guaranteed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill. Labor will also move an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be introduced. In the future, Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the government can show that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is moving to block this disallowance motion, because it would jeopardise the cashless debit card program in Ceduna and East Kimberley. Without this legislative instrument, thousands of people who are currently benefiting from the cashless debit card will have their current payments thrown into chaos.

The card has been shown to be helping the communities in Ceduna and East Kimberley fight gambling addiction, alcoholism and drug addiction. These communities want this card, and this disallowance motion would mean that the Senate would be ignoring the wishes of these communities. The government is committed to reducing the social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug abuse and gambling in areas with a high level of welfare dependency.

The debit card commenced in Ceduna, South Australia on 15 March 2016 and in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia on 26 April 2016. These sites were extended on 14 March 2017. The government announced in the 2017-18 budget that the card would be expanded to two new locations. The government announced the Goldfields region on 1 September 2017 and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region on 21 September 2017.

On 1 September 2017, the government released the independent Cashless debit card trial evaluation,Final evaluation report that assessed the impact of the introduction of the card in Ceduna and East Kimberley. The recently published independent evaluation states the card has shown considerable positive impact in communities, including 48 per cent of drug takers using fewer drugs, 41 per cent of drinkers drinking less and 48 per cent of gamblers gambling less.

While there have been up-front costs, the actual running costs of the card are a fraction of this. It is expected those costs will continue to reduce over time. Income management currently supports 25,044 vulnerable Australians. Over 21,000 of these people live in the Northern Territory and 82 per cent are Indigenous. Extending income management allows the government to continue supporting recipients while also testing approaches for the delivery of restricted welfare payments going forward. The extension will include streamlined servicing changes to reduce administrative costs. The Department of Social Services has undertaken extensive consultation across all four sites engaging a range of stakeholders, including local businesses, community organisations, service providers, state and local governments, community leaders and the general public.

While the government appreciates the support provided by the opposition on the continuation of Ceduna and East Kimberley, we call on them to support the expansion of the card to the communities that are asking for it. As they know, we will see the best results from communities that want to participate, but more sites will mean that we can get a better evaluation for the card and its successors.

There is a large amount of community support for the debit card to be given to communities in the Goldfields in Western Australia and in Hervey Bay in Queensland—just ask the member for O'Connor and the member for Hinkler about what their communities are telling them. As the five shires in the Goldfields told the Prime Minister, they want to see how the card can improve their communities. As the community in Hinkler has told their representative, over 75 per cent of the community want to see how the card can help them. The government will be moving to block this disallowance motion.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation will be voting against this disallowance motion. I actually went to a committee meeting in Kalgoorlie to listen to the concerns about the cashless debit card. It was overwhelming that the community there—businesses, community leaders, the mayor and councillors, and even the Aboriginal community themselves—have actually endorsed the card and are basically pleading with everyone to leave it in place. Yes, there are some objections to it and there were concerns about it, but we have to be responsible here. There are clearly problems in these communities. It's not just targeting, as Senator Siewert said, the Aboriginal community; it's right across the board for everyone.

They are still getting their entitlements; it's just being handed out in a different way—in a more responsible way, I believe. Minderoo have done some investigations into it and their findings are that 41 per cent of drinkers on the card said that they were drinking less, 48 per cent of drug users on the card said they were using drugs less, there has been an increase in children going to school and 48 per cent of gamblers on the card said they were gambling less. They still have use of the moneys; it's just that it is not in cash, ready to use. In a lot of ways, it's just saying, 'Take more responsibility and use the money wisely.' A lot of families are not spending the money on their children—to feed them and put food on the table—but the money is used for drink or it's used for gambling, or other family members come along and take the money off them. It's a custom of the Aboriginal people—what is yours belongs to everyone. So I think it's very good that way.

There is a huge problem in Kalgoorlie. There is lot of violence on the streets, there is abuse and there is drunkenness. It's going to affect the tourism industry. It has clearly been stated in reports put out by the police that crime is actually down due to the card. Mr Desmond Hill, from Kununurra in the East Kimberley, said:

I've actually seen more kids go to school with uniforms. I've had grandparents say that they're happy the cards are there because now their children have food in the fridge, the kids are clothed and they're all going to school. We're living with the changes, albeit it took 18 months to see the changes happening. They are actually happening.

Councillor Allan Suter, mayor of the District Council of Ceduna, informed the committee that the cashless debit card trial has been the most effective initiative to address excessive use of alcohol, drugs and gambling products in Ceduna and that it has resulted in significant improvements for families, particularly for children.

Yet the Greens stand here and say, 'You're taking away their rights; it's against human rights!' Let me go back to what the committee said:

The committee acknowledges concerns that the bill may limit a participant's human rights. However, the committee is satisfied that the bill only limits those rights to the extent required to realise the objective of the card to reduce the social harm caused by the excessive use of alcohol, drugs and gambling.

We are sick and tired of the Greens' bleeding-heart attitude because it's against people's rights. It's not against their rights. It's about time we started helping people. Clearly, the way our society is going now, it's not working. If they truly care about the kids and our societies, sometimes tough love is the best way to go with it. That's the best way to help these people. The best way to help the future generations is to take actually take control of it. This is taxpayers' money and it needs to be spent wisely to help these communities, because they are screaming out for it. They said to Senator Siewert at that meeting: 'If this is not the answer, then tell us what is, because you don't live here; you have no idea of what it's like on our streets and in our communities. If you think you know the answer then come here and live here. Don't tell us how to run our communities.' That's how they feel about it.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Oh yes, they did, because they were quite angry. I was at that meeting. I damn well know what happened there—through the chair. Anyway, I will oppose this disallowance motion. I think it is in the best interests. It has proven its worth. People who live in those communities have stated that it has helped, and it needs to be rolled out in other areas. That is what I'm saying. I do support the cashless debit card and I oppose the Greens disallowance motion.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm hardly surprised One Nation are opposing this. Why would they actually look at the evidence? Instead they choose to quote from the Minderoo Foundation, who have always supported this, because it was Andrew Forrest's idea in the first place. All they're doing is quoting—misquoting—the ORIMA evaluation, which has been torn to shreds by so many people who have the research qualifications to look at properly designed surveys rather than push polling. I spoke of that earlier. I don't know if Senator Hanson heard that before she came into the chamber. I spoke earlier of the fundamental flaws in the survey design and the ORIMA report. I will acknowledge that it is not just Senator Hanson who misuses those figures; it is also the government and Minderoo, of course, trying to promote their wunderkind answer to significant disadvantage in Aboriginal communities.

I say again: it is not that we don't believe that these issues should be addressed. What we disagree with is the approach that's been taken, given that the overwhelming evidence shows that income management does not work. There are many people in the community—the participants, particularly—who do not support this card, both in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna. Allan Suter was quoted. Again, he's always been in favour of this card. He is the mayor. He is the one that refuses to consult with the people on the card. That's on the public record from the Senate inquiry, where he said, as I mentioned earlier, that people can call in, but, since the trial started and, particularly coming up to the rollover, he has not consulted members of the community.

I'm deeply disappointed that Labor still refuse to give up their addiction to income management. We all know they had the chance to stop this when they came to power at the end of 2007, but they didn't. They let it roll on and, in fact, they renewed it to the new income management in 2012, a time I clearly remember. But the evaluation shows that it didn't work. That was a proper, independent evaluation. To call the ORIMA report a proper, independent evaluation is a misuse of the word 'independent'.

In terms of some of the academic work that has been undertaken, let's look at the wraparound services—which are something that we all agree should have been given to these communities, but they should have been given to the communities right from the start. People shouldn't need the card to get access to better services. I will quote from the most recent evaluation of the cashless welfare card from CAEPR, the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, at the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, by Elise Klein and Sarouche Razi. They found in their research on the wraparound services:

Even aspects of the experiment that were meant to support people on the CDC were poorly applied.

They said:

The types of services funded were limited in scope, focusing on treating assumed vices such as drug and alcohol addiction, and an inability to manage finances. This narrow focus overlooked funding for community development initiatives already on tight budgets, which may have more relevance to people on social benefits. The ORIMA final evaluation acknowledged the poor implementation of service funding:

Even that report said:

Overall, the evaluation found that the support services funded through the Trial had not been implemented in a timely manner.

They go on to say:

Most notable, however, is the limited reported use of these services by people on the CDC. The ORIMA (2017b) final evaluation found that only 12% of people they interviewed on the card reported using drug and alcohol services, and 10% used financial and family support services. This suggests that the assumption that people on welfare had vices to be serviced by drug and alcohol programs, and money management programs was not justified. As well, for people wanting to use the services, the services were not available in time.

They also talk about how it's made money management hard. I talked quite a bit yesterday about how people feel they have less control of their finances. They could be reducing their financial literacy, which is what the final evaluation of the Northern Territory new income management found it had an impact on. There was evidence that they think suggests that people in fact became more dependent on income support because of income management.

The report concludes:

The trial of the CDC in the East Kimberley is perverse contemporary Indigenous policy. Not only did the trial, by limiting the amount of cash, bring material hardship, it furthered the disempowerment of those marginalised by relational poverty. The terms 'community' and 'consultation' were used by government and advocates of the card as a tactic to give the impression that the diverse populations in Kununurra and Wyndham were unified in approval of the card. They do not reflect the substantive opposition to the card from many people living in the study site; indeed, the White Card—

for those that don't know, that's what the communities call the Indue card—

has become a symbol for disempowerment and neocolonial government control.

Use by the Australian Government of bespoke 'evidence' to tell only the story that the government wants to be heard is disturbing. It has two purposes: to continue the trial and expand the program in other regions—

it's quite obvious we're seeing that in the next debate we're about to have—

and to obfuscate the reality that the CDC's logic is deeply flawed and reliant on jobs that do not exist. The card cannot achieve the aims it seeks, as the framing is perverse and disconnected from the lives of those on the card.

I have to say that reflects what I've heard people say—most certainly in plainer words than that. Overwhelmingly, people who are actually trying to survive on the card have talked about the impact it's had on them, their difficulty in managing their money—and, again, there are many complicated reasons for that. They're reliant on cash and, when you're living on a low income, you do rely much more on cash because you can buy second-hand goods. You also need the cash to be able to send people to school. I spoke to people on the ground in Kununurra who felt shame when they had to get tokens instead of being able to use cash, for example, at the fair the year before last. They spoke again of the shame of not being able to have enough cash to buy things for their children at the school fete and in many other circumstances. They talk about the fact that everybody knows what the card looks like.

Again in the debate yesterday I heard from someone who was participating in the debate who obviously hasn't spoken to many people on the card, because that person—it was Senator Macdonald—said the card is just like any other card. That is absolute nonsense. It's not just any other card. On my credit card or on my bank card I can actually BPAY. I don't have to give everybody my credit card number so they can deduct the money for whatever I want to buy off my credit card. Or I can pay my power bill. I don't have to pay my power bill that way; I actually pay mine with BPAY. They can't; hence, it is not the same as for everybody else. It is just not true.

And everybody in communities knows what the Indue card looks like. They know what the white card looks like. That's what it's commonly called. They've probably seen a number of people whose card wouldn't work having to stand separately from the queues, because the refusal rate has been high. The government said they've dealt with that. Well, I can tell you right now that that's not true. Just last week I spoke to participants on the card who said they are still getting refusals for use of the card. It does make people's lives harder.

The government consults with their hand-picked leaders, who aren't necessarily the people in the community that the community would say are their leaders. They don't listen to the leaders who don't support the card. In fact, some of those in the East Kimberley, who did support the card originally, don't support the card anymore. That is never spoken about in here. It has caused deep division in communities, and we shouldn't be causing deep divisions in communities. We should be looking at the services that work. We should be working cooperatively with and being led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

At the Close the Gap breakfast this morning, that was the clear message in the report they released today. There are a number of very important points in that report, and I urge people to go and read it. It is a damning report on the 10-year strategy. We haven't met the targets that were set in place to try and close the gap. In fact, they found, this year, the gap has widened. They said the plan was essentially abandoned halfway through the 10-year process. They talked about needing to make sure that from here on in we have a proper strategy; we need the infrastructure in place. But, really importantly, there need to be Aboriginal controlled and led processes. The word a lot of people are using is 'co-design'. We shouldn't be doing things to Aboriginal communities; we should be working with and being led by Aboriginal communities if we are going to close the gap and address issues around Aboriginal disadvantage.

The current approach is a paternalistic, top-down approach where people feel disempowered. This is what the report says—that the card has become 'a symbol of disempowerment'. We undermine people's financial literacy and their ability to control their lives. The most personal part of somebody's life is controlling their finances and making those day-to-day decisions. What we've done is taken that away from people. We've made their lives harder. Also, there are innumerable ways that people are getting around the card in the first place. The results that everybody quotes in here are not real results. It is flawed methodology. Please support this. Please end this farce so we can invest the resources that have been wasted—over a billion dollars since 2007—on income management.

We still have the same levels of disadvantage in the Northern Territory. In fact, things in some areas have got worse. I keep hearing people talk about school attendance. There was a study released over January that looked at the impact of the Northern Territory intervention on school attendance. It showed that school attendance decreased when the intervention came in. It actually had an impact on birth weights. There are very complex issues here that also relate to the issues of intergenerational trauma, the impact that trauma has and the chaos that it can cause. It is not a simple issue. It is not a simple solution. It is not accepted by all the participants I've talked to—which is probably something you would expect in terms of the people who would contact me.

Yes, there are some people in the Kununurra and Ceduna communities who will tell you that things have improved in those communities. I've heard the story about how it is cleaner now. Well, for a start, they actually have rubbish cleaners who, when I went out there, were going around picking up the rubbish before most people got up in the morning. But, secondly, I've been told by people who actually live in Kununurra—as recently as last week—that there are still a lot of the same issues going on that were going on previously. And I heard some specific examples of some troubles, which I am in fact not going to repeat here, because I don't want people using them as stereotypical behaviour.

The fact is you don't change issues around addiction by taking over control of people's lives. The sort of evidence you hear about that sort of personal behaviour is the same when you're trying to bring in the drug trials—addiction expert after addiction expert told the committee that was looking into it that it won't work and that it's not the way you address addiction. It's a health issue. Drug and alcohol addiction are health issues, and that's the way we should be addressing them. We need to be providing the services that actually address people's needs.

Please: support this disallowance and get rid of this farce so we can move on to the issues that we all agree we need to be addressing. Focus on that. Focus on making sure that we get Closing the Gap right through the refresh process. Make sure that we are focused on the issues that will truly make a difference. This doesn't. It's a waste of resources and it takes attention away from what we should be doing. I urge this place to support this disallowance.

Question negatived.